Draft Wildlife Conservation Plan for
Migratory Shorebirds
DRAFT
August 2014
© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia, 2014.
The Draft Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds is licensed by the Commonwealth of
Australia for use under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence with the exception of the
Coat of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia, the logo of the agency responsible for publishing the
report, content supplied by third parties, and any images depicting people. For licence conditions see:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/
This report should be attributed as ‘<insert name of report>, Commonwealth of Australia <insert year>’.
The Commonwealth of Australia has made all reasonable efforts to identify content supplied by third
parties using the following format ‘© Copyright, [name of third party] ’.
The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for the Environment.
While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually
correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the
contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly
through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.
Front cover: Latham's snipe feeding on Bribie Island (Graeme Chapman)
Back cover: Sharp-tailed sandpiper (Brian Furby Collection)
Table of Contents
1
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 3
2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2
Review of the 2006 – 2011 Wildlife Conservation Plan ........................................................ 5
3
Species covered under the Wildlife Conservation Plan .................................................................. 6
4
Vision............................................................................................................................................... 6
5
Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 6
6
Legal Framework ............................................................................................................................. 6
6.1
Statutory commitments relevant to migratory birds ............................................................ 6
6.2
Other Australian commitments relevant to migratory shorebirds ....................................... 8
7
Important habitat for migratory shorebirds in Australia .............................................................. 10
8
Threats .......................................................................................................................................... 12
8.1
Habitat loss .......................................................................................................................... 12
8.2
Habitat modification ............................................................................................................ 13
8.3
Anthropogenic disturbance ................................................................................................. 15
8.4
Climate variability and change ............................................................................................ 15
8.5
Harvesting of shorebird prey ............................................................................................... 15
8.6
Fisheries by-catch ................................................................................................................ 16
8.7
Hunting ................................................................................................................................ 16
8.8
Threat prioritisation............................................................................................................. 17
9
Actions to achieve the Specific Objectives ................................................................................... 20
10 Affected interests.......................................................................................................................... 24
11 Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the Plan ............................... 24
12 Major benefits to other migratory species, marine species, species of cetacean or conservation
dependent species ........................................................................................................................ 25
13 References .................................................................................................................................... 26
14 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................... 29
2|Page
1
Summary
Migratory species which visit Australia such as shorebirds and seabirds received national
protection as a matter of national environmental significance when the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) took effect in July 2000.
Under the EPBC Act, wildlife conservation plans may be prepared for the purposes of
protection, conservation and management of listed migratory, marine, cetacean or
conservation dependant species.
This Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds provides a framework to guide
conservation of migratory shorebirds and their habitat in Australia, and in recognition of their
migratory habits, outlines national activities to support their appreciation and conservation
throughout the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. The previous Wildlife Conservation Plan for
Migratory Shorebirds came into effect in February 2006, and was the first wildlife
conservation plan developed under the EPBC Act.
A review of the previous wildlife conservation plan recommended that Little Ringed Plover
(Charadrius dubius) should be added to the revised list of species covered by the plan based
on expert opinion and new information. This species is a known regular visitor to northern
Australia in small numbers (Geering et al. 2007). This revised plan contains clarification of
statutory elements of the EPBC Act by addressing topics relevant to the conservation of
migratory shorebirds, including a summary of Australia’s commitments under international
conventions and agreements, and identification of important habitat. It outlines national
actions to support flyway shorebird conservation, and should be used to ensure these
activities are integrated and remain focused on the long-term survival of migratory shorebird
populations and their habitats.
The Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds will remain in place until such time
that the shorebird populations that visit Australia have improved to the point where they do
not need research or management actions to support their survival. This Plan will be in place
for 10 years and must be reviewed every five years. It is available for download from the
Department’s website at: http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/wildlife-conservation-planmigratory-shorebirds
2
Introduction
Most migratory shorebirds make an annual return journey of many thousands of kilometres
between breeding grounds in the northern hemisphere and their non-breeding grounds in
the southern hemisphere. The East Asian-Australasian Flyway (the flyway) stretches from
breeding grounds in the Russian tundra, Mongolia and Alaska southwards through east and
south-east Asia, to non-breeding areas in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Australia and New
Zealand. One species, the Double-banded Plover (Charadrius bicinctus), breeds in New
Zealand and migrates to eastern Australia.
3|Page
Figure 1. East Asian – Australasian Flyway
Thirty-seven species of migratory shorebird regularly and predictably visit Australia during
their non-breeding season, from the Austral spring to autumn. Australia’s coastal and
freshwater wetlands are important habitat for these migratory shorebirds during the nonbreeding season as places to rest and feed, building energy reserves to travel the long
distance (up to 13 000 kilometres) back to their breeding grounds. In the month or two
before migrating, migratory shorebirds need to increase their bodyweight by up to 70 per
cent to sustain their journey.
Flocks that migrate from the northern hemisphere reach ‘staging areas’ such as Roebuck
Bay and Eighty-mile Beach in north-western Western Australia by September. From these
staging areas birds disperse across Australia, reaching the south-eastern states by October.
Smaller flocks – cumulatively numbering thousands of birds – take advantage of ephemeral
wetlands across inland Australia while the others spread over the western, northern and
eastern coastlines. Migratory shorebirds are often gregarious, gathering in mixed flocks, but
they also occur in single-species flocks or feed and roost with resident shorebird species
such as stilts, avocets, oystercatchers and plovers. The picture is further complicated
because flocks or individuals of some migratory species remain in Australia during the winter
months, for example, first-year birds that lack the experience or physical condition to return
to their natal sites but often do so in their second year. By March the birds that have
dispersed across the country have begun to gather at staging areas, once again forming
large flocks and feeding virtually round the clock to build up energy reserves for their
northward migration.
The ecology of migratory shorebirds is complex, especially in Australia where investigations
are continuing to unravel patterns of movement, roosting and dispersal behaviour through
targeted research programs. To be effective, shorebird conservation and management
initiatives in Australia must take into account the unique distribution and ecology of
shorebirds, and the critical importance of international migratory pathways and staging
areas, particularly the Yellow Sea region (MacKinnon et al. 2012; Iwamura et al. 2013;
Murray et al. 2014).
4|Page
As migratory shorebird populations decline there is a growing need to minimise threats to
remaining habitats which are important for their ongoing survival (MacKinnon et al. 2012).
This need is occurring in the face of ever increasing human development and loss of habitat.
Efforts to conserve migratory shorebirds in one country can only be effective with
cooperation and complementary actions in all countries that shorebirds visit. Australia is
therefore well positioned to lead conservation and research action for migratory shorebirds in
the Flyway that would otherwise be difficult. As migratory shorebird populations in Australia
remain stable for about three months of the year (December – February), Australia plays an
important role in monitoring population changes in species that regularly visit here.
Monitoring and research projects undertaken by governments, academic institutions and
conservation groups in Australia and other parts of the flyway continue to indicate declining
migratory shorebird populations, largely attributed to ongoing loss of critical intertidal habitat
in east Asia (MacKinnon et al. 2012; Murray et al. 2014). For the migratory shorebird
populations that visit Australia to have a reasonable chance of survival through this century,
increased levels of habitat protection are needed across the flyway.
2.2
Review of the 2006 – 2011 Wildlife Conservation Plan
After reviewing progress made with the conservation of Australia’s migratory shorebirds
since 2006, some fundamental problems with the previous wildlife conservation plan were
identified. Specifically, only moderate progress was made against the objectives and actions
in the wildlife conservation plan. Of the 31 actions listed, four were completed
comprehensively. While progress was made on a further 20 actions, these were mostly
considered to be on-going. Little or no progress was made on the remaining seven actions.
In a holistic sense the wildlife conservation plan failed to meet its objectives, because it had
apparently not reduced the rate of decline of any of the listed species nor did it have any
measurable influence on the known core impacts in East Asia.
The review recommended that given the contemporary and likely future threats to migratory
shorebirds in Australia and the East Asian – Australasian Flyway, there was a need to retain
a wildlife conservation plan for the 36 listed species to maintain a national framework
identifying research and management actions. Little Ringed Plover (Charadrius dubius)
should be considered as an addition to the revised Appendix A based on expert opinion and
new information. This species is a known regular visitor to northern Australia in small
numbers (Geering et al. 2007). The review further recommended that the wildlife
conservation plan should be updated to remove the completed actions and include new,
focused conservation priorities. The revised wildlife conservation plan builds upon the
previous plan’s achievements and was made in consultation with representatives from the
Australian, state and territory governments, NGOs, industry and research agencies. The new
plan should provide for the research and management actions necessary to support the
survival of the listed migratory shorebirds.
5|Page
3
Species covered under the Wildlife
Conservation Plan
This Wildlife Conservation Plan includes 37 species of migratory shorebird that regularly visit
Australia (Appendix A). Little Ringed Plover has been added to the revised list based on
expert opinion and new information. This species is a regular visitor to northern Australia in
small numbers (Geering et al. 2007). The plan will cease to apply to any of these species
should they become a listed threatened species under the EPBC Act.
If an additional migratory shorebird species that is currently considered to be vagrant was to
be recorded on a regular basis, monitoring programs for the species should be supported to
determine whether inclusion under the plan is appropriate.
4
Vision
Ecologically sustainable populations of migratory shorebirds remain distributed across their
range and diversity of habitats in Australia, and throughout the East Asian-Australasian
Flyway.
5
Objectives
1. Protection of important habitat for migratory shorebirds has occurred throughout the
flyway.
2. Wetland habitat in Australia, on which migratory shorebirds depend, is protected and
conserved.
3. Anthropogenic threats to migratory shorebirds in Australia are minimised or, where
possible, eliminated.
4. Knowledge gaps in migratory shorebird ecology in Australia are identified and
addressed to inform decision makers, land managers and the public.
6
Legal Framework
6.1
Statutory commitments relevant to migratory birds
The EPBC Act is the Australian Government’s key piece of environmental legislation. Under
the Act approval is required for any proposed action, including projects, developments,
activities, or alteration of these things, likely to have a significant impact on any of the
identified matters of national environmental significance. One of these matters specifically
protected by the Act is migratory species; specifically those migratory species listed under
6|Page
the Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as the
CMS or the Bonn Convention; http://www.cms.int/ ) and bilateral migratory bird agreements
with Japan (JAMBA), China (CAMBA), and Republic of Korea (ROKAMBA).
Australia’s list of migratory species is established under Section 209 of the EPBC Act and
must include:
“(a) all migratory species that are:
(i) native species; and
(ii) from time to time included in the appendices to the Bonn Convention; and
(b) all migratory species from time to time included in annexes established under
JAMBA and CAMBA; and
(c) all native species from time to time identified in a list established under, or an
instrument made under, an international agreement approved by the Minister
under subsection (4). [Which includes ROKAMBA]
The list must not include any other species.”
The migratory species list formed under the EPBC Act is available at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/biodiversity/migratory-species .
Section 211(A to E) of the EPBC Act prohibits the killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping or
moving of any migratory species in or on a Commonwealth area, although certain
exemptions are allowed for in Section 212. For places outside of Commonwealth areas, the
EPBC Act prevents actions (Section 140) or approvals under Strategic Assessments
(Section 146L) being inconsistent with Australia’s migratory species’ obligations under the
Bonn Convention or JAMBA, CAMBA or ROKAMBA.
Under the Bonn Convention, species are listed on Appendix I or Appendix II (or both), with
Appendix I species recognised as endangered. Appendix II species are those which have an
unfavourable conservation status and which require international agreements for their
conservation and management, as well as those which would significantly benefit from the
international cooperation that could be achieved by an international agreement. All of
Australia’s migratory shorebird species are listed on Appendix II, and Eastern Curlew
(Numenius madagascariensis) is also listed on Appendix I. Endangered migratory species
included in Appendix I, in addition to enjoying strict legal protection by Parties, can benefit
from the development of Concerted Actions. These range from field research and
conservation projects to the establishment of technical and institutional frameworks for
action. International Single Species Action Plans are an important instrument to promote and
coordinate activities that seek to protect and restore habitat, mitigating obstacles to migration
and other controlling factors that might endanger species.
Parties to the convention that are Range States of a migratory species commit to prohibiting
the taking of animals listed in Appendix I, and endeavour:

to conserve and, where feasible and appropriate, restore those habitats of the
species which are of importance in removing the species from danger of extinction;
7|Page


to prevent, remove, compensate for or minimize, as appropriate, the adverse effects
of activities or obstacles that seriously impede or prevent the migration of the
species; and
to the extent feasible and appropriate, prevent, reduce or control factors that are
endangering or are likely to further endanger the species, including strictly controlling
the introduction of, or controlling or eliminating, already introduced exotic species.
Signatories to JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA are committed to taking appropriate
measures to preserve and enhance the environment of migratory birds, in particular, by
seeking means to prevent damage to such birds and their environment. These agreements
also commit the governments to exchange research data and publications, to encourage
formulation of joint research programs, and to encourage the conservation of migratory
birds.
Australia’s obligations under the Bonn Convention and JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA
amount to ensuring adverse effects on listed migratory species and their habitats in Australia
do not occur. The EPBC Act seeks to prevent such adverse impacts by imposing civil
penalties (Section 20) to persons who take actions that have, or are likely to have, a
significant impact on a listed migratory species. EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21 – Industry
Guidelines for avoiding, assessing and mitigating impacts on EPBC Act listed migratory
shorebird species provides assistance in determining the likelihood of a significant impact on
migratory shorebirds.
This wildlife conservation plan gives clarification to the concept of ‘important habitat’ in
relation to migratory shorebirds (Section 9). It also identifies other actions to assist
Australia’s commitments under both the Bonn Convention and the bilateral migratory bird
agreements.
6.2
Other Australian commitments relevant to migratory shorebirds
While the Bonn Convention, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA provide mechanisms for
pursuing conservation outcomes for migratory birds, they encompass all migratory birds and
are binding only on a limited number of countries. As Australia became increasingly
concerned about the conservation status of migratory waterbirds, additional mechanisms
have been developed for multilateral cooperation on waterbird conservation throughout the
flyway.
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
Australia is a signatory to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (see
http://www.ramsar.org ). The Ramsar Convention, as it is commonly known, is an
intergovernmental treaty dedicated to the conservation and ‘wise use’ of wetlands.
The Ramsar Convention focuses on conservation of important habitats rather than species.
Parties are committed to identifying wetlands that qualify as internationally significant against
a set of criteria, to nominating these wetlands to the List of Wetlands of International
Importance (the Ramsar List) and to ensuring the maintenance of the ecological character of
each listed Ramsar site.
8|Page
As at August 2014, Australia has 65 Wetlands of International Importance that cover a total
of approximately 8.1 million hectares. Many of Australia’s Ramsar sites were nominated and
listed using waterbird-based criteria, and in some of these cases migratory shorebirds are a
major component of the waterbird numbers (e.g. Roebuck Bay and Eighty-mile Beach
Ramsar Sites in Western Australia).
East Asian – Australasian Flyway Partnership
The Partnership for the Conservation of Migratory Waterbirds and the Sustainable Use of
their Habitats in the East Asian–Australasian Flyway (East Asian – Australasian Flyway
Partnership) was launched on 6 November 2006. A Ramsar regional initiative, the
Partnership is an informal and voluntary collaboration of effort focusing on protecting
migratory waterbirds, their habitat and the livelihoods of people dependant on them. The
flyway is one of nine major migratory waterbird flyways around the globe. It extends from
within the Arctic Circle in Russia and Alaska, southwards through East and South-east Asia,
to Australia and New Zealand in the south, encompassing 22 countries. Migratory waterbirds
share this flyway with 45 per cent of the world's human population. The flyway is home to
over 50 million migratory waterbirds - including shorebirds, Anatidae (ducks, geese and
swans), seabirds and cranes - from over 250 different populations, including 28 globally
threatened species. Flyway partners include countries, intergovernmental agencies,
international non-government organisations and the international business sector. A
cornerstone of the partnership is establishment of a network of internationally important sites
for waterbirds throughout the flyway. The Partnership operates via working groups and task
forces; one working group and a number of task forces focus on migratory shorebirds. More
information about the Partnership is available online at: http://www.eaaflyway.net/ .
9|Page
7
Important habitat for migratory shorebirds
in Australia
Under the EPBC Act, ‘important habitat’ is a key concept for migratory species, as identified
in EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1 Significant Impact Guidelines - Matters of National
Environmental Significance 2009. Defining this term for migratory shorebirds in Australia is
important to ensure that habitat necessary for the ongoing survival of the 37 species is
appropriately managed.
Important habitats in Australia for migratory shorebirds under the EPBC Act include those
recognised as nationally or internationally important (see below). The widely accepted and
applied approach to identifying internationally important shorebird habitat throughout the
world has been through the use of criteria adopted under the Ramsar Convention on
Wetlands. Further assistance in identifying important habitats and survey guidelines for
migratory shorebirds is available in EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21 – Industry Guidelines
for avoiding, assessing and mitigating impacts on EPBC Act listed migratory shorebird
species.
According to this approach, wetland habitat should be considered internationally important if
it regularly supports:


1 per cent of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterbird
or
a total abundance of at least 20 000 waterbirds.
Nationally important habitat for migratory shorebirds can be defined using a similar approach
to these international criteria, i.e. if it regularly supports:



0.1 per cent of the flyway population of a single species of migratory shorebird or
2000 migratory shorebirds or
15 migratory shorebird species.
10 | P a g e
Figure 2 illustrates the process for identifying important habitat for migratory shorebirds
under the EPBC Act. This process applies to each of the migratory shorebird species with
the exception of Latham’s Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) which is treated differently, reflecting
its cryptic lifestyle.
Figure 2. Process for identifying important habitat for migratory shorebirds (excluding
Latham’s snipe)
Is the shorebird area1 already
identified as internationally2
important?
YES
Important habitat
YES
Important habitat
NO
Does the shorebird area support3:
a) at least 0.1 per cent of the flyway
population2 of a single migratory
shorebird species, or
b) at least 2000 migratory
shorebirds, or
c) at least 15 migratory shorebird
species.
NO
Not important habitat
1.
2.
3.
Following Clemens et al. (2010) a shorebird area is defined as: the geographic area that has been used by
the same group of shorebirds over the main non-breeding period. This is effectively the home range of the
local population when present. Shorebird areas may include multiple roosting and feeding habitats. While
most migratory shorebird areas will represent contiguous habitat, non-contiguous habitats may be included
as part of the same area where there is evidence of regular bird movement between them. Migratory
shorebird areas may therefore extend beyond the boundaries of a property or project area, and may also
extend beyond Ramsar boundaries for internationally important areas. Existing information and/or
appropriate surveys can determine the extent of a migratory shorebird area.
A list of internationally important areas, current at 2008, is available at:
www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/publications/shorebirds-east-asia.html
‘Support’ is defined differently depending on whether the habitat is considered permanent or ephemeral.

For permanent wetlands, ‘support’ is defined as: migratory shorebirds are recorded during surveys
and/or known to have occurred within the area during the previous five years.

For ephemeral wetlands, ‘support’ is defined as: habitat that migratory shorebirds have ever been
recorded in, and where that habitat has not been lost permanently due to previous actions.
11 | P a g e
Another issue regarding important habitat is the degree of importance of habitat components
within complexes or areas. For example, a large area may be considered internationally or
nationally important, but within that area there may be particular habitats that are more
valuable than others, such as those used most regularly for roosting and feeding. In
promoting the wise use of wetlands it may be pertinent to strongly protect such habitat from
development and recreational activities that may disturb shorebirds, but consider allowing
these activities within parts of the broader area.
Latham’s Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii)
Latham’s Snipe does not commonly aggregate in large flocks or use the same habitats as
other migratory shorebird species. Consequently, habitat important to Latham’s Snipe is not
regularly identified using the process outlined in Figure 2 and different criteria are therefore
necessary. Threshold criteria are still considered the best way to identify important sites in
the absence of data sufficient for more rigorous methods. For the purposes of this plan,
important habitat for Latham’s Snipe is described as areas that have previously been
identified as internationally important for the species, or areas that support at least 18
individuals of the species. Definitions for shorebird ‘area’ and ‘support’ are as above.
8
Threats
In a global review, Sutherland et al. (2012) identify 45 threats facing shorebird populations
that can be divided into three categories: natural, current anthropogenic and future issues.
The natural issues include volcanoes and cyclones, while current anthropogenic threats
encompass climate change, abandonment of rice fields and human disturbance (Sutherland
et al. 2012). Likely future issues that could affect shorebird population include microplastics,
global hydro-security and changes in sedimentation rates (Sutherland et al. 2012). The
review conducted by Sutherland et al. demonstrates the breadth of issues facing shorebirds,
ranging from unlikely to highly catastrophic events causing species extinction.
In Australia and the East Asian – Australasian Flyway, many of the current threats are linked
to the changing availability of wintering, stop-over and breeding habitat (MacKinnon et al.
2012). The loss of key locations at any point on the migratory pathway will have significant
consequences to a number of species. Key threats to the migration and survival of
Australian migratory shorebirds are identified in this section. The list is no by means
exhaustive but identifies the main threats that are likely to significantly affect shorebird
populations.
8.1
Habitat loss
Infrastructure / coastal development in Australia
Habitat loss occurring as a result of development is the most significant threat currently
affecting Australian migratory shorebirds, both in Australia and along the East Asian–
Australasian Flyway. It is estimated that since European settlement approximately 50 per
cent of Australia's non-tidal wetlands have been converted to other uses. In some regions
12 | P a g e
the rate of loss has been even higher. For example, on the Swan Coastal Plain of Western
Australia 75 per cent of wetlands have been filled or drained and in south-east South
Australia 89 per cent have been lost. Urban development in Australia has often involved
draining and filling of wetlands for industrial, commercial, and waste disposal (Lee et al.
2006). Many watercourses in urban areas have been converted to concrete-lined drains
resulting in loss of in-stream habitat, fringing wetlands and streamside vegetation.
In Australia, due to the nature of the environment and the distribution of the human
population, losses of this type have been concentrated in estuaries and in the permanent
wetlands of the coastal lowlands of the southern part of the continent (Lee et al. 2006).
Agricultural development and infrastructure has been attributed to the substantial loss of
wetlands on the floodplains of inland and coastal rivers. Drainage and conversion of
wetlands for agricultural activities has been a major cause of wetland loss worldwide.
Infrastructure /coastal development in staging and stop-over areas, particularly the Yellow
Sea
Of particular concern in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway is coastal development and
intertidal mudflat ‘reclamation’ in the Yellow Sea region, which is bordered by China, the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea (Murray et al. 2014). A
migratory shorebirds’ ability to complete long migration flights depends on the availability of
suitable habitat at sites across the flyway that provide adequate food and roosting
opportunities to build sufficient energy reserves. The Yellow Sea region is a major staging
area for several species of shorebird, including significant populations of Great Knot (Calidris
tenuirostris), which fly between Australia and the east coast of Asia on migration (Bamford et
al. 2008). In a recent study using historical topographical maps, remote sensing and
geographical information system (GIS) analysis, Murray et al. (2014) suggest that up to twothirds (65 per cent) of the tidal flats existing in the Yellow Sea in the 1950s have been lost to
development. Losses of such magnitude are likely the key drivers of declines in biodiversity
and ecosystem services in the intertidal zone of the region (MacKinnon et al. 2012). Further
reclamation projects are taking place or are in the planning stage in the Yellow Sea region.
8.2 Habitat modification
Modification of wetland habitat can arise from a range of different activities including, fishing
or aquaculture, forestry and agricultural practices, mining, changes to hydrology and
development near wetlands for housing or industry (Lee et al. 2006; Sutherland et al. 2012).
Such activities may result in increased siltation, pollution and weed and pest invasion, all of
which can change the ecological character of a shorebird area, potentially leading to
deterioration of the quantity and quality of food and other resources available to support
migratory shorebirds (Sutherland et al. 2012 and references therein). The notion that
migratory shorebirds can continue indefinitely to move to other important habitat as their
normal feeding, staging or roosting areas become unusable is erroneous. As areas become
unsuitable to support migratory shorebirds, remaining habitat will attract more birds, in turn
creating overcrowding, competition for food and depletion of food resources, and increased
risk of disease transmission.
13 | P a g e
Chronic pollution
Shorebird habitat is threatened by chronic accumulation and concentration of pollutants.
Chronic pollution may arise from both local and widespread sources. Migratory shorebirds
may be exposed to chronic pollution and high nutrient loads both during their time in
Australia and along their migration route, although the extent and implications of this
exposure remains largely unknown. In their feeding areas, shorebirds are most at risk from
bioaccumulation of human-made chemicals such as organochlorines from herbicides and
pesticides and industrial waste. Agricultural, residential and catchment run-off carries excess
nutrients, heavy metals, sediments and other pollutants into waterways and eventually
wetlands.
Acute pollution
Wetlands and intertidal habitats are threatened by acute pollution caused by, for example, oil
or chemical spillage. Acute pollution generally arises from accidents, such as chemical spills
from shipping, road or industrial accidents. Generally migratory shorebirds are not directly
affected by oil spills, but important habitat may be impacted for many years through
catastrophic loss of marine benthic food sources.
Invasive species
Introduced plant species such as Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Ludwigia
peruviana, Salvinia sp. and Mimosa pigra have adversely affected the ecological character
and biodiversity of wetlands across Australia; introduced animals such as pigs (Sus sp.),
Cane Toads (Rhinella marina) and European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) are also well known for
their destructive impacts on wetland areas. There is also a constant risk of new introductions
of exotic pasture, aquarium and garden species, and exotic marine pests from ballast water
and hull transport. Of specific concern for migratory shorebirds is the introduction of exotic
marine pests resulting in loss of benthic food sources at important intertidal habitat (Neira et
al. 2006). Predation by invasive animals, such as cats and foxes in Australia has not been
quantified but anecdotal evidence suggests some individuals are taken as prey.
Outside Australia invasive species are negatively affecting coastal habitat, causing local
species to be displaced by species accidentally or deliberately introduced from other areas.
With increase in global shipping trade the influx of such species is increasing, especially in
the coastal zone. Examples include Spartina grass in China, Zebra Mussels (Dreissena
polymorpha), and Tilapia (Tilapia spp.) in wetlands and estuaries and along coasts
(MacKinnon et al. 2012).
Altered hydrological regimes
Altered hydrological regimes can directly and indirectly threaten migratory shorebird habitat.
Water regulation, including extraction of surface and ground water (for example, diversions
upstream for consumptive or agricultural use), can lead to significant changes to flow
regime, water depth and water temperature. Changes to flows can lead to permanent
inundation or drying down of connected wetlands, and changes to the timing, frequency and
duration of floods. These changes impact both habitat availability and type (for example, loss
of access to mudflats through permanent higher water levels, or a shift from freshwater to
14 | P a g e
salt-tolerant vegetation communities), as well as disruption of lifecycles of plants and
animals in the food chain for migratory shorebirds.
Reduced recharge of local groundwater that occurs when floodplains are inundated can
change the vegetation that occurs at wetland sites, again impacting habitat and food
sources.
Water regulation can alter the chemical make-up of wetlands. For example, reduced flushing
flows can cause salt water intrusion or create hyper-saline conditions. Permanent inundation
behind locks and weirs can cause freshwater flooding of formerly saline wetlands, as well as
pushing salt to the surface through rising groundwater.
8.3
Anthropogenic disturbance
Research suggests that disturbance has a high energetic cost to shorebirds and may
compromise their capacity to build sufficient energy reserves to undertake migration (GossCustard et al. 2006; Weston et al. 2012). Disturbance is greatest where increasing human
population and development pressure may have an impact on important habitat. Migratory
shorebirds are most susceptible to disturbance during daytime roosting and foraging periods.
As an example, disturbance of migratory shorebirds in Australia is known to result from
aircraft, industrial operations and construction, and recreational activities such as fishing, offroad driving on beaches, unleashed dogs and jet-skiing (Weston et al. 2012).
8.4
Climate variability and change
There is strong scientific evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are
causing changes to the world’s climate. As such, ‘Loss of habitat caused by anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases’ has been declared a Key Threatening Process under the
EPBC Act. Such changes have the potential to impact on migratory shorebirds and their
habitats by reducing the extent of coastal and inland wetlands or through a poleward shift in
the range of many species (Chambers et al. 2005; Iwamura et al. 2013). Climate change
projections for Australia suggest likely increased temperatures, rising sea levels and an
overall drying trend for much of the continent together with more frequent and/or intense
extreme climate events resulting in likely species loss and habitat degradation (Chambers et
al. 2005).
8.5
Harvesting of shorebird prey
Overharvesting of intertidal resources, including fish, molluscs, annelids, sea-cucumber,
sea-urchins and seaweeds can lead to decreased productivity and changes in prey
distribution and availability (MacKinnon et al 2012). The recent industrialisation of harvesting
methods in China has resulted in greater harvests of intertidal flora and fauna with less
manual labour required, which is impacting ecosystem processes throughout the intertidal
zone (MacKinnon et al. 2012). In many important shorebirds areas, the intertidal zone is a
15 | P a g e
maze of fishing platforms, traps and nets that not only add to overfishing, but prevent access
to shorebird feeding areas from human disturbance.
8.6
Fisheries by-catch
Competition for food by human fishers together with associated disturbance by humans and
boats has continued to put pressure on waterbirds along the East Asian – Australasian
Flyway (MacKinnon et al. 2012). Fishing nets, set for shrimp or fish species, accidentally kill
shorebirds if left on intertidal flats at low tide. Birds caught in the nets drown when the tide
rises. The significance of this threat is not quantified and requires further investigation.
8.7
Hunting
Hunting of migratory shorebirds in Australia has been prohibited for a number of decades. It
is unclear if illegal hunting occurs during the annual duck hunting season in certain states.
Historically, Latham’s Snipe was particularly vulnerable to hunting. The species was formerly
hunted, legally, in all states in eastern Australia. It has been estimated that up to 10 000
birds (including 6000 birds in Victoria and 1000 birds in Tasmania) were killed annually by
hunters before bans on shooting were introduced in 1976 (in New South Wales), 1983 (in
Tasmania) and 1984 (in Victoria). Shooting is also banned in Queensland and South
Australia, but the dates at which bans were introduced are unknown (Naarding 1981, 1983,
1985, 1986). Eastern Curlews were also shot for food in Tasmania (Marchant & Higgins
1993) and have been hunted intensively on breeding grounds and at stopover points while
on migration (Marchant & Higgins 1993).
There have been a number of investigations into hunting activity at international sites,
including in the Chang Jiang Estuary, China (Tang & Wang 1991, 1992, 1995; Barter et al.
1997; Ma et al. 1998). Tang and Wang (1992) estimated that approximately 30 000 and 9
000 shorebirds were captured with clap nets in the 1991 and 1992 northward migrations
respectively. They suggested that the decrease between the two years was due to declining
hunter numbers, increasing incomes from alternative activities and/or reduction in shorebird
habitat due to reclamation. However, a study during the 1996 northward migration showed
that hunter numbers had not declined since 1991 and that the number of shorebirds caught
was similar (Barter et al. 1997). Studies during the 2000-2001 period indicate that hunting
activity had declined at Chongming Dao, China (Ma et al. 2002).
Wang et al. (1991, 1992) reported hunting activity in the Yellow River Delta, estimating that
18 000 - 20 000 shorebirds were caught with clap nets during northward migration in 1992
and probably a higher number during southward migration in 1991. However, no hunting was
observed in the Delta during surveys in the 1997, 1998 and 1999 northward migrations
(Barter 2002). With the exception of the Chang Jiang Estuary, no hunting activity has been
detected in China during recent shorebird surveys that covered about one-third of Chinese
intertidal areas between 1996 and 2001 (Barter 2002). Hunting also appears to be declining
in South Korea, with the only reported instance being minor hunting activity in Mangyeung
Gang Hagu (Barter 2002).
16 | P a g e
8.8
Threat prioritisation
Each of the threats outlined above has been assessed to determine the risk posed to
migratory shorebird populations using a risk matrix. This in turn determines the priority for
actions outlined in Section 9. The risk matrix considers the likelihood of an incident occurring
and the consequences of that incident. Threats may act differently on different species and
populations at different times of year, but the precautionary principle dictates that the threat
category is determined by the group at highest risk. Population-wide threats are generally
considered to present a higher risk.
The risk matrix uses a qualitative assessment drawing on peer reviewed literature and
expert opinion. In some cases the consequences of activities are unknown. In these cases,
the precautionary principle has been applied. Levels of risk and the associated priority for
action are defined as follows:
Very High - immediate mitigation action required
High - mitigation action and an adaptive management plan required, the precautionary
principle should be applied
Moderate – obtain additional information and develop mitigation action if required
Low – monitor the threat occurrence and reassess threat level if likelihood or consequences
change
Figure 3. Risk Prioritisation
Likelihood
Consequences
Not
significant
Minor
Moderate
Major
Catastrophic
Almost certain
Low
Moderate
Very High
Very High
Very High
Likely
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Very High
Possible
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Very High
Unlikely
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Rare or
Unknown
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
17 | P a g e
Categories for likelihood are defined as follows:
Almost certain – expected to occur every year
Likely – expected to occur at least once every five years
Possible – might occur at some time
Unlikely – such events are known to have occurred on a worldwide basis but only a few
times
Rare or Unknown – may occur only in exceptional circumstances; OR it is currently unknown
how often the incident will occur
Categories for consequences are defined as follows:
Not significant – no long-term effect on individuals or populations
Minor – individuals are affected but no affect at population level
Moderate – population recovery stalls or reduces
Major – population declines
Catastrophic – population extinction
18 | P a g e
Figure 4. Migratory Shorebird Population Residual Risk Matrix
Likelihood of
occurrence
Consequences
Not significant
Minor
Moderate
Major
Almost certain

Harvesting of shorebird
prey

Coastal development in
Australia

Coastal development,
particularly in the
Yellow Sea
Likely

Hunting*



Anthropogenic
disturbance
Climate variability and
change
Fisheries by-catch*

Altered hydrological
regimes

Invasive species

Acute pollution
Possible

Chronic pollution
Unlikely
Rare or
Unknown
* threat occurs mostly outside Australia.
Catastrophic
9
Actions to achieve the Specific Objectives
Actions identified for the protection, conservation and management of the species covered
by this plan are described below. Some of the objectives are long-term and may not be fully
achieved during the lifetime of this wildlife conservation plan. 1 Lead organisations are
identified in bold type.
Objective 1: Protection of important habitat for migratory shorebirds has occurred
throughout the flyway.
1a
Action
Priority
Performance Criteria
Threat to be mitigated
Responsible agencies1
and potential partners
Maintain, and where
possible, improve
existing international
obligations that concern
migratory shorebird
conservation.
High
Continue or improve existing
international obligations to minimise
threats.
Coastal development,
particularly in the Yellow
Sea
Australian
Government
Climate variability and
change
Altered hydrological
regimes
1b
Seek the support of the
Chinese and South
Korean Governments to
protect remaining tidal
flats in the Yellow Sea.
High
Undertake negotiations with the Chinese
and South Korean Governments through
multilateral environmental agreements
and biennial migratory bird consultative
meetings.
Coastal development,
particularly in the Yellow
Sea
Altered hydrological
regimes
Australian
Government
East Asian –
Australasian Flyway
Partnership
Invasive species
1c
Support the development
of a single species action
plan for Eastern Curlew
through the Convention
on Migratory Species.
High
An Eastern Curlew task force is formed
and a single species action plan
developed by 2017.
Coastal development,
particularly in the Yellow
Sea
Australian
Government
Coastal development in
Australia
Anthropogenic
disturbance
Invasive species
Hunting
1d
1e
Make available via the
EAAFP website,
Australian Government
standards and case
studies for assessing
development proposals
that may impact on
important migratory
shorebird habitats.
Medium
Support the East Asian –
Australasian Flyway
Partnership
Implementation Strategy.
Medium
Development assessment standards
relevant to important migratory
shorebird habitat are discussed and
considered by national governments
across the flyway.
Coastal development,
particularly in the Yellow
Sea
Australian
Government
Progress with Implementation Strategy
objectives can be demonstrated by
2016.
Coastal development,
particularly in the Yellow
Sea
Australian
Government
East Asian –
Australasian Flyway
Partnership
Objective 2: Wetland habitat in Australia, on which migratory shorebirds depend, is
protected and conserved.
2a
Action
Priority
Performance Criteria
Threat to be mitigated
Responsible agencies1
and potential partners
Identify key areas for
shorebird species and
improve legal site
protection and
management using
international, national
and state mechanisms.
High
An increased number of important sites
for migratory shorebirds in Australia are
formally recognised as new protected
areas by 2020.
Coastal development in
Australia
Australian
Government
Climate variability and
change
State and Territory
governments
Harvesting of shorebird
prey
Relevant NGOs
Anthropogenic
disturbance
2b
Update a directory of
important habitat for
migratory shorebirds.
High
A review of internationally and nationally
important habitat is completed and
published by 2018.
Coastal development in
Australia
Australian
Government
Altered hydrological
regimes
State and territory
governments
Anthropogenic
disturbance
Relevant NGOs
Objective 3: Anthropogenic threats to migratory shorebirds in Australia are minimised or,
where possible, eliminated.
3a
3b
3c
3d
Action
Priority
Performance Criteria
Threat to be mitigated
Responsible agencies1
and potential partners
Develop and implement
a community education
and awareness program
to reduce the effects of
recreational disturbance
on migratory shorebirds.
High
Community education programs and
initiatives implemented, particularly in
communities where disturbance is high
and where highest risk species exist.
Anthropogenic
disturbance
Australian
Government
Investigate the impacts
of climate change on
migratory shorebird
habitat and populations
in Australia.
High
Investigate the
significance of
cumulative impacts on
migratory shorebird
habitat and populations
in Australia.
High
Investigate the impacts
of hunting and shorebird
prey harvesting on
Medium
State and territory
governments
Relevant NGOs
An improved understanding of the
effects of climate change on migratory
shorebirds can be demonstrated.
Climate variability and
change
Academic institutions
Undertake research to identify the level
of threat that cumulative impacts of
development have on migratory
shorebird habitat.
Coastal development in
Australia
Academic institutions
An improved understanding of the
effects of hunting on migratory
shorebirds populations can be
Hunting
Academic institutions
Fisheries by-catch
Australian Government
Australian Government
Australian Government
21 | P a g e
migratory shorebirds in
Australia and the flyway.
3e
Develop guidelines for
wetland rehabilitation
and the creation of
artificial wetlands to
support populations of
migratory shorebirds.
Medium
demonstrated by 2020.
Harvesting of shorebird
prey
Guidelines developed to support land
managers rehabilitate degraded
wetlands are published by 2020.
Altered hydrological
regimes
Australian
Government
Invasive species
State and territory
governments
Chronic pollution
Acute pollution
3f
Ensure all areas
important to migratory
shorebirds in Australia
continue to be
considered in
development
assessment processes.
High
All assessments of future developments
are undertaken in accordance to the
EPBC Act and the associated guidelines
and policy documents and take account
of information included in the wildlife
conservation plan for migratory
shorebirds and other sources of
information.
Coastal development in
Australia
Relevant NGOs
Australian
Government
State and territory
governments
Objective 4: Knowledge gaps in migratory shorebird ecology in Australia are identified and
addressed to inform decision makers, land managers and the public.
4a
Action
Priority
Performance Criteria
Threat to be mitigated
Responsible agencies1
and potential partners
Identify and prioritise
knowledge gaps that are
required to support the
conservation and
management of
migratory shorebirds.
High
Priority knowledge gaps are identified,
and responses are agreed and
implemented for migratory shorebirds in
Australia by 2018.
Coastal development,
particularly in the Yellow
Sea
Australian
Government
Coastal development in
Australia
Climate variability and
change
State and territory
governments
Academic institutions
Relevant NGOs
Anthropogenic
disturbance
Altered hydrological
regimes
Invasive species
Hunting
Harvesting of shorebird
prey
4b
Identify important stopover and staging areas
for migratory shorebirds
in the East Asian –
Australasian Flyway.
Medium
Important stop-over and staging areas
are identified and published by 2020.
Coastal development,
particularly in the Yellow
Sea
Coastal development in
Australia
Australian
Government
East Asian –
Australasian Flyway
Partnership
Climate variability and
change
4c
Survey northern and
inland Australia for
migratory shorebird
populations and identify
important habitat.
High
Priority areas have been identified and
surveyed for migratory shorebird
populations by 2020.
Coastal development in
Australia
Australian
Government
Climate variability and
change
State and territory
governments
Altered hydrological
22 | P a g e
4d
Maintain Shorebirds
2020 as Australia’s
national shorebird
monitoring program.
High
The Shorebirds 2020 program remains
active and relevant over the duration of
this plan.
regimes
Academic institutions
Invasive species
Relevant NGOs
Coastal development in
Australia
Australian
Government
Climate variability and
change
Birdlife Australia
Relevant NGOs
Anthropogenic
disturbance
Altered hydrological
regimes
Invasive species
4e
Complete a review of
the conservation status
of all migratory
shorebirds.
High
The conservation status, including
revised population estimates, of all
migratory shorebirds is reviewed and
published by 2020.
Coastal development,
particularly in the Yellow
Sea
Coastal development in
Australia
Australian
Government
Academic institutions
Birdlife Australia
Climate variability and
change
Anthropogenic
disturbance
Altered hydrological
regimes
Invasive species
4f
Promote conservation of
migratory shorebirds
through strategic
programs and
educational products.
High
Knowledge of shorebirds and their
conservation needs is widespread
amongst decision makers and across
the community.
Coastal development,
particularly in the Yellow
Sea
Coastal development in
Australia
Australian
Government
Relevant NGOs
State and territory
governments
Climate variability and
change
Anthropogenic
disturbance
Altered hydrological
regimes
Invasive species
Harvesting of shorebird
prey
4g
Promote exchange of
shorebird conservation
information between
governments, NGOs
and communities
through use of networks,
publications and web
sites.
High
Information on shorebird conservation is
available in a form useful to
Governments, NGOs, land managers
and the community.
Coastal development,
particularly in the Yellow
Sea
Coastal development in
Australia
Australian
Government
State and territory
governments
Relevant NGOs
Climate variability and
change
Anthropogenic
disturbance
Altered hydrological
23 | P a g e
regimes
Invasive species
10 Affected interests
Organisations likely to be affected by the actions proposed in this plan include: government
agencies (Commonwealth, state and territory, local), particularly those involved with coastal
environments and wetland conservation; researchers; birdwatching groups; conservation
groups; wildlife interest groups; environmental consulting companies; and, proponents of
coastal development in the vicinity of important habitat. This list however should not be
considered exhaustive, as there may be other interest groups that would like to be included
in the future or need to be considered when specialised tasks are required.
11 Organisations/persons involved in
evaluating the performance of the Plan
This plan must be formally reviewed no later than five years from when it was endorsed and
made publicly available. The review will determine the performance of the plan; whether the
plan continues unchanged; whether the plan is varied to remove completed actions and
include new conservation priorities; or whether a wildlife conservation plan is no longer
necessary for the species.
The review will be coordinated by the Department of the Environment in association with
relevant state and territory agencies, and key stakeholder groups including scientific
research organisations.
Key stakeholders who may be involved in reviewing the performance of this Wildlife
Conservation Plan:
Australian Government
Department of Agriculture
Department of Defence
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Department of Industry
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Indigenous Land Corporation
State / Territory Governments
Department of Environment and Conservation, WA
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, QLD
Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, NT
Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, SA
Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW
Department of Environment and Primary Industries, VIC
24 | P a g e
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, TAS
Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate, ACT
Museums
Natural Resource Management Bodies/ Catchment Management Authorities
Shipping, oil and gas exploration and development agencies
Local Governments
Industry and Non-Government Organisations
Conservation groups
Indigenous Land Councils and communities
Indigenous land and sea management organisations
Local communities
Nature-based tourism industry
Oil and gas exploration and production industry
Salt works, land developers and port authorities
Universities and other research organisations
Recreational boating and four-wheel driving groups
12 Major benefits to other migratory species,
marine species, species of cetacean or
conservation dependent species
There are a number of major benefits to species other than migratory shorebirds, which will
result from implementation of the wildlife conservation plan. Some migratory and threatened
seabirds may benefit from the implementation of a wildlife conservation plan for migratory
shorebirds. For example, Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis) is listed vulnerable under the
EPBC Act and the Little Tern (Sternula albifrons), listed as endangered under State
threatened species legislation in QLD, NSW and TAS and listed threatened in VIC, shares
similar habitats to migratory shorebirds and would therefore benefit from habitat
management actions. Marine turtles in Western Australia, Northern Territory and
Queensland share nesting habitat with migratory shorebirds and may therefore benefit from
habitat management actions. Coastal and freshwater wetlands serve as nurseries for many
species of fish and aquatic invertebrates.
As much of the wildlife conservation plan focuses on identifying and developing effective
management strategies for important habitats, there will also be major conservation benefits
for those marine species that share habitats with migratory shorebirds. Although it is not a
legislative requirement to specify benefits to non-migratory shorebirds, there are eighteen
species of resident shorebirds including the Banded Stilt (Cladorhynchus leucocephalus),
Hooded Plover (Thinornis rubricollis) and Australian Pied Oystercatcher (Haematopus
longirostris) that share many habitats and characteristics with their migratory relatives and
thus would also gain major benefits from the plan’s implementation.
25 | P a g e
13 References
Bamford, M., Watkins, D., Bancroft, W., Tischler, G., & Wahl, J. (2008) Migratory Shorebirds
of the East Asian – Australasian Flyway; Population Estimates and Internationally
Important Sites. Wetlands International – Oceania. Canberra, Australia.
Barter, M.A., Qian, F.W., Tang, S.X., Yuan, X. & Tonkinson, D. (1997a) Hunting of waders
on Chongming Dao; a declining occupation? Stilt 31: 18-22.
Barter, M.A., Tonkinson, D., Tang, S.X., Yuan, X. & Qian, F.W. (1997b) Wader numbers on
Chongming Dao, Yangtze Estuary, China, during early northward migration and
the conservation implications. Stilt 30: 7-13.
Barter, M. (2002) Shorebirds of the Yellow Sea: Importance, threats and conservation status.
Wetlands International Global Series 9, International Wader Studies 12. Canberra,
Australia
Chamber, L.E., Hughes, L., & Weston M.A. (2005) Climate change and its impact on
Australia’s avifauna. Emu 105: 1-20.
Clemens, R. S., Weston, M. A., Haslem, A., Silcocks, A., & Ferris, J. (2010). Identification of
significant shorebird areas: thresholds and criteria. Diversity and Distributions 16:
229-242.
Geering, A., Agnew, L., & Harding, S. (2007) Shorebirds of Australia. CSIRO Publishing.
Collingwood, Australia.
Goss-Custard, J.D., Triplet, P., Sueur, F., West, A.D., (2006) Critical thresholds of
disturbance by people and raptors in foraging wading birds. Biological
Conservation 127: 88-97.
Iwamura, T., Possingham, H.P., Chadès, I., Minton, C., Murray, N.J., Rogers, D.I., Treml,
E.A., & Fuller, R.A. (2013) Migratory connectivity magnifies the consequences of
habitat loss from sea-level rise for shorebird populations. Proceedings of the
Royal Society Biological Sciences 280: 20130325.
Lee, S.Y., Dunn, R.J.K., Young, R.A., Connolly, R.M., Dale, P.E.R., Dehayr, R., Lemckert,
C.J., McKinnon, S., Powell, B., Teasdale, P.R., & Welsh, D.T. (2006) Impact of
urbanization on coastal wetland structure and function. Austral Ecology 31: 149163.
Ma, M., Lu, J.J., Tang, C.J., Sun, P.Y. & Hu, W. (1998) The contribution of shorebirds to the
catches of hunters in the Shanghai area, China, during 1997-1998. Stilt 33: 32-36.
Ma, Z.J., Jing, K, Tang, S.M. & Chen, J.K. (2002) Shorebirds in the Eastern Intertidal Areas
of Chongming Island during the 2001 Northward Migration. Stilt 41: 6-10.
MacKinnon, J., Verkuil, Y.I. & Murray, N. (2012) IUCN situation analysis on East and
Southeast Asian intertidal habitats, with particular reference to the Yellow Sea
(including the Bohai Sea). Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival
Commission No. 47. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. ii + 70 pp.
26 | P a g e
Marchant, S. & P.J. Higgins, eds. (1993) Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and
Antarctic Birds. Volume 2 - Raptors to Lapwings. Oxford University Press.
Melbourne, Victoria.
Murray, M.J., Clemens, R.S., Phinn, S.R., Possingham, H.P. & Fuller, R.A. (2014) Tracking
the rapid loss of tidal wetlands in the Yellow Sea. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment
Naarding, J.A. (1981). Latham's Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) in Tasmania. Wildlife Division
Technical Report. 81/2. Tasmania: National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Naarding, J.A. (1983). Latham's Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) in Southern Australia. Wildlife
Division Technical Report. 83/01. Tasmania: National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Naarding, J.A. (1985). Latham's Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) in Australia and Japan. Wildlife
Division Technical Report. 85/2. Tasmania: National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Naarding, J.A. (1986). Lathams Snipe, Gallinago hardwickii, in Australia and Japan. RAOU
Report Series. 24:1-74.
Neira, C., Grosholz, E.D., Levin, L.A., & Blake, R. (2006) Mechanisms generating
modification of benthos following tidal flat invasion by a Spartina hybrid. Ecological
Applications 16: 1391-1404.
Smit, C.J., & Visser, G.J.M. (1993) Effects of disturbance on shorebirds: a summary of
existing knowledge from the Dutch Wadden Sea and Delta area. Wader Study
Group Bulletin 68: 6-19.
Sutherland, W.J., Alves, J.A., Amano, T., Chang, C.H., Davidson, N.C., Finlayson, C.M., Gill,
J.A., Gill, R.E., González, P.M., Gunnarsson, T.G., Kleijn, D., Spray, C.J., Székely,
T., & Thompson, D.B.A. (2012) A horizon assessment of current and potential
future threats to migratory shorebirds. Ibis 54: 663-679.
Tang S.X. & Wang T.H. (1991) A Survey of Hunting Pressure on Waterbirds near Shanghai,
March-May 1991. East China Waterbirds Ecology Group Report, June 1991. East
China Normal University, Shanghai.
Tang S.X. & Wang T.H. (1992) Assessment of Hunting Pressure on Shorebirds near
Shanghai, Phase II (Socio-economic Analysis). East China Waterbirds Ecology
Group Report, December 1992. East China Normal University, Shanghai.
Tang, S.X. & Wang, T.H. (1995) Waterbird hunting in East China. Asian Wetland Bureau
Publication No. 114, Kuala Lumpur.
Wang, T.H., Tang, S.X. & Ma, J.S. (1991) Survey of shorebirds and coastal wetlands in the
Yellow River Delta, Shandong Province. Autumn 1991. East China Waterbird
Ecology Group, East China Normal University, Shanghai.
Wang, T.H., Tang, S.X., Sai, D.J. & Fu, R.S. (1992) A survey of coastal wetlands and
shorebirds in the Yellow River Delta, Shandong Province. Spring 1992. East
China Waterbird Ecology Group, East China Normal University, Shanghai.
27 | P a g e
Weston, M.A., McLeod, E.M., Blumstein, D.T., & Guay, P.-J. (2012) A review of flightinitiation distances and their application to managing disturbance to Australian
birds. Emu 112: 269-286.
28 | P a g e
14 Appendix A
Migratory shorebird species included under the wildlife conservation plan:
Scientific Name
Charadriidae
Pluvialis fulva
Pluvialis squatarola
Charadrius dubius
Charadrius bicinctus
Charadrius mongolus
Charadrius leschenaultii
Charadrius veredus
Scolopacidae
Gallinago hardwickii
Gallinago stenura
Gallinago megala
Limosa limosa
Limosa lapponica
Numenius minutus
Numenius phaeopus
Numenius madagascariensis
Xenus cinereus
Actitis hypoleucos
Tringa brevipes
Tringa incana
Tringa nebularia
Tringa stagnatilis
Tringa totanus
Tringa glareola
Arenaria interpres
Limnodromus semipalmatus
Calidris tenuirostris
Calidris canutus
Calidris alba
Calidris ruficollis
Calidris subminuta
Calidris melanotos
Calidris acuminata
Calidris ferruginea
Limicola falcinellus
Philomachus pugnax
Phalaropus lobatus
Glareolidae
Glareola maldivarum
Common Name
Plovers and Lapwings
Pacific golden plover
Grey plover
Little ringed plover
Double-banded plover
Lesser sand plover
Greater sand plover
Oriental plover
Sandpipers
Latham's snipe
Pin-tailed snipe
Swinhoe's snipe
Black-tailed godwit
Bar-tailed godwit
Little curlew
Whimbrel
Eastern curlew
Terek sandpiper
Common sandpiper
Grey-tailed tattler
Wandering tattler
Common greenshank
Marsh sandpiper
Common redshank
Wood sandpiper
Ruddy turnstone
Asian dowitcher
Great knot
Red knot
Sanderling
Red-necked stint
Long-toed stint
Pectoral sandpiper
Sharp-tailed sandpiper
Curlew sandpiper
Broad-billed sandpiper
Ruff
Red-necked phalarope
Pratincoles
Oriental pratincole
29 | P a g e
BIO325.0314
environment.gov.au